assessing the impact of presentation mining on ...jestec.taylors.edu.my/special issue iccsit...

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Special Issue on ICCSIT 2018, July (2018) 116 - 131 © School of Engineering, Taylor’s University

116

ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF PRESENTATION MINING ON UNDERSTANDING AMONG VISUAL LEARNERS

VINOTHINI KASINATHAN1,*, IMRAN MEDI1, AIDA MUSTAPHA2, THOMAS PATRICK O’DANIEL1

1 Faculty of Computing, Engineering, and Technology, Asia Pacific University of

Technology and Innovation (APU), Technology Park Malaysia, Bukit Jalil, 5700 Kuala

Lumpur, Malaysia 2 Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn

Malaysia, Parit Raja, 86400 Batu Pahat, Johor, Malaysia

*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

Abstract

PowerPoint is popular amongst learners since it helps with content organization

and note-taking. This does not imply that learning has been effective for all

learners, as not everyone can learn by listening and reading simplified content

provided on PowerPoint slides. While it may be effective to the aural/auditory

learners from the Visual, Auditory and Kinesthetic sensory (VAK) model, it is

less effective for visual learners. This paper assesses the impact of presentation

mining, which is a tool that extracts keywords and key phrases from a collection

of PowerPoint slides and generates a mind map based on the extracted keywords

and key phrases. The target group is visual learners, as visualizing the content of

presentation slides in the form of mind maps is hypothesized to improve the

learning quality, thus making the materials easier to understand and to memorize.

To achieve the objective, a quantitative study was conducted by distributing

questionnaires to 80 randomly selected students at Asia Pacific University of

Technology and Innovation (APU), in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The results of

the research indicated a significant increase of students understanding of the

learning materials provided using the proposed tool, although some further work

is required to improve the aesthetics of the mind map.

Keywords: Learning styles, Microsoft PowerPoint, Presentation mining, Visual

auditory kinetic, Visual auditory reading/writing kinetic.

Assessing the Impact of Presentation Mining on Understanding among . . . . 117

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Special Issue 7/2018

1. Introduction

Fleming and Mills [1] classified learning styles into three modalities, Visual,

Auditory, and Kinesthetic sensory (VAK). Fleming [2] has expanded (VAK) model

by adding writing to become the Visual, Auditory, Writing and Kinesthetic sensory

(VARK) model that attempts to account for differences in the way individuals

learn. The VARK model divides the visual modality into visual-graphic oriented

and reads/write (or text-oriented) learning style to distinguish between different

forms of visual information, suggesting that visual learners act better to information

presented in charts, diagrams or maps forms rather than to information presented

in word format. Visual learners are at a disadvantage when information is

disseminated via PowerPoint slides which are better suited to read/write learners

who are given the predisposition for text amongst most presenters. The traditional

classroom paradigm, although gradually giving way to learner-centric approaches,

is still prevalent and is not suited to the learning styles of most learners within

higher education today.

Turkington and Harris [3] stated that nearly 66.67% of Generation Y and

Millennials are visual learners, accustomed to the use of emojis, abbreviated text,

and notation. Prensky [4] popularized the term ‘digital native’ to refer to individuals

born during and after the emergence of digital technologies, for whom the

traditional method of disseminating information via structured and sequential

presentation slides is incompatible with their method of learning. As such, digital

natives are more lucid in the way gather knowledge and information, in which

Cornu [5] describes as a ‘hypertext’ approach.

Further research into learning styles across disciplines establishes a

predominance towards visual learners, with such learners constituting 82.4% within

the engineering domain [6], 56.5% across the medical sciences [7], and 48.4% in

occupational therapy [8]. For visual learners, visualization improves learning

efficiency and memory capacity, as well as the learning time itself. Whilst visual

learners are capable of absorbing information relatively quickly, their auditory

learning capabilities are weak thus making it difficult to learn via oral lectures and

reading. Nonetheless, visual learners can multi-task more effectively and can

perform a number of tasks such as texting, browsing, when learning. Due to a

preference for visual imagery, such learners face obstacles in classrooms where

PowerPoint slides are relied upon. To be effective, slides must incorporate more

interactive features as opposed to simple bullet points. Figure 1 outlines the basic

learning styles from the original VAK learning model.

Microsoft PowerPoint has become the primary teaching and learning aid within

most classrooms, providing summarized content delivered via a set of slides which

include text, pictures, charts, and diagrams. However, PowerPoint is effective in

content delivery in a concise and succinct manner, Weimer [9] suggests that a major

drawback of this method relates to content simply being copied by learners. Slides

are not used as a basis for further exploration and development of understanding,

rather slide content is simply memorized by learners. Xingeng and Jianxiang [10]

conduct a study to analyze and evaluate the effectiveness of PowerPoint slides in a

classroom setting. Their findings revealed that nearly 30% of the sample struggled

to focus during class due to insufficient material. A further 25% respondent stated

that such presentations tended to be dull and uninteresting whilst a further 20% felt

it be monotonous, often missing key points due to the uniform nature of the content.

118 V. Kasinathan et al.


Up to 25% of those involved indicated that they were overwhelmed with the

information contained on each slide whilst a small number 8% stated that they

struggled to follow the overall structure and sequence of the presentation. These

findings mirror the research conducted by Cesena and Vernizzi [11], in which

visual learners struggle to process the oral explanation that accompanies slides.

Visual learners, therefore, struggled to conceptualize the information beyond the

slides and are not able to contextually apply the learning material.

To enhance the visual learners’ learning when using PowerPoint slides

Kasinathan et al. [12] have developed a presentation mining system that extracts

keywords and key phrases from a collection of PowerPoint slides and generates a

mind map based on the extracted keywords and key phrases. The automated

approach of generating a mind map from an ordinary set of PowerPoint slides could

potentially improve the learning experience amongst visual learners. This due to

the visualization of simplified bulleted text, showing the connections or

relationships between extracted keywords or key phrases. Aside from the

visualization of the links in the content of slides, mind maps clearly highlight the

most important keywords and key phrases from each slide, so that the revision time

for any learner going through the slides can be minimized.

Fig. 1. Characteristics of VAK [13].



Figure 2 shows the reconstruction of keywords and key phrases from

PowerPoint slides into mind maps. Note that the nodes in thicker lines represent

the main topics in the PowerPoint slides.

Fig. 2. Reconstruction of keywords and key

phrases from PowerPoint slides into mind maps.

Presentation mining system is anticipated to benefit especially the visual

learners because they can see connections between the key concepts in the learning

material. Among the tangible benefits from presentation, mining system improves

learning time among the visual learners, learning is faster, and the learners become

more creative in solving complicated and tricky questions because of understanding

through a graphical representation of information. Moreover, the intangible

benefits include more flexible pedagogy in reaching out visual learners, since it

creates a sense of belonging in class when the visual learners feel engaged, as well

as a medium to maximize their learning potential.

2. Methods

This study is based on a quantitative research questioner to evaluate the

effectiveness of the presentation mining system in addressing the needs of visual

learners. Questionnaires serve as the instrument for data and feedback collection

due to their suitability for statistical measurement. The proposed questionnaire was

conducted to measure the respondents’ understanding when utilizing a presentation

mining system. It is performed amongst 80 randomly selected students at APU in

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The questionnaire was structured to assess a group of

learners based on their learning style. The questionnaire consists of two sections.

Section A discusses the respondent’s demographic information, Section B aims to



investigate the respondents’ attitude towards a presentation mining tool and the

extent to which it helped to facilitate their learning. A questionnaire was chosen as

the data elicitation tool primarily due to the volume of individuals that could be

targeted within a relatively short period of time. The presentation mining tool was

evaluated by 80 randomly selected students who agreed to take part in the study

and complete the questionnaire once their evaluation of the tool was complete.

Table 1 lists 23 objectives contained in Section B together with the respective

findings on learning styles.

Table 1. Questions, objectives, findings for determining learning styles.

Question

No. Objectives Findings

1. Determine the preferred method

of learning when a learn

encounters a new subject

Visual learners tend to immediately read

the written instructions, whilst auditory

learners will wait and listen to the

explanation provided by the instructor.

Kinesthetic learners prefer the hands-on

approach, immediately aiming to

familiarize themselves with new

equipment.

2. Explore which of the senses,

aural, visual or touch, is the most

effective means through which

learning takes place

Visual learners defer to a map, whereas

auditory learners will ask for directions.

Kinesthetic learners rely on their own

faculties to seek them through, utilizing

tools such as a compass.

3. Investigate how learners access

new information

When cooking, visual learners tend to

(prescriptively) follow a written recipe.

Auditory learner seeks guidance from

friends (conveyed orally), whilst

kinesthetic learners opt for

experimentation or trial and error.

4. Explore how learners with

different learning styles interpret

and disseminate information

When required to teach others, visual

learners tend to provide instructions in

written format. Auditory learners provide

verbal explanations, whereas kinesthetic

learners prefer demonstrations.

5. Explore how learners utilize

action, language, and images to

communicate

Visual learner gravitates towards images,

auditory learns to prefer language, and

kinesthetic learners communicate through

actions

6. Investigating learner interests

based on activities undertaken

frequently

Visual learners are likely to visit galleries

and museums to indulge their preferred

sense whilst auditory learners are likely to

socialize with friends and listen to music.

Kinesthetic learners are likely to opt for

sporting activities or anything that

requires physical exertion such as DIY.



Question

No. Objectives Findings

7. Determine the difference in idea

representation and application

amongst learners

Considering shopping habits, visual

learners prefer to imagine themselves in a

specific outfit, as opposed to auditory

learners who would gather feedback from

sales assistance. Kinesthetic learners are

unlikely to do both and instead of

choosing to try and test the outfit by

themselves.

8. Investigate methods learners use

when collection useful

information

When gathering information about a

holiday, kinesthetic learners are likely to

visualize and imagine themselves at a

destination/holiday, whilst visual learners

would prefer to browse brochures.

Auditory learners prefer to hear

recommendations.

9. Identify learning preference and

behavior when engaging in

brainstorming activities.

Auditory learners will go over problems

and solutions mentally before acting,

kinesthetic learners will be tactile with the

writing instrument as they brainstorm,

whilst visual learners focus on

words/images when engaging in

brainstorming.

10. Investigate how learners evaluate

objects and arrive at a decision

Kinesthetic learners will engage with the

products through touch, visual learners

will base their purchase decisions based

on color or other visual cues whilst

auditory learners will base their decision

on sales’ person description.

11. Investigate how learners execute

short-term memory

Visual learners will remember an object/text

by looking at it for a prolonged period,

auditory learners will repeat words to

themselves, whilst kinesthetic learners will

learn by acting or performing an action.

12. Investigate how learners respond

to stress-induced anxiety and

how this affects their learning

behavior

Under stress, visual learners are likely to

imagine the worst possible outcome of the

situation, auditory learners will talk to

themselves continuously whilst

kinesthetic learners will pace around the

room.

13. To determine how learning

styles, shape preferences where

note taking is concerned

Auditory learners are likely to speak over

notes, visual learners will jot down points

and diagrams whilst kinesthetic are likely

to imagine what is being said.

14. Explore how learners best present

ideas

Whilst presenting, visual learners will use

images to convey what they mean,

auditory learners will look towards using

examples and anecdotes to explain their

position whilst kinesthetic learners will

discuss whatever topic they are

presenting.



Question

No.

Objectives Findings

15. Identifying how frequent

activities influence learner

interests.

Visual learners pursued artistic interests

such as films, photography, viewing

artwork; whilst auditory learners preferred

to speak to friends and listen to music.

Kinesthetic learners preferred to partake

in activities such as dancing and sports.

16. Investigating learner preference

when interacting with people.

Preferred interactions for kinesthetic

learners are those which take place over

an activity, such as a meal or game.

Auditory learners prefer speaking on the

telephone whilst face to face meetings

were preferred by visual learners.

17. Exploring how learners from first

impressions when meeting new

people

Visual learners observe attire and base

first impressions on this. Meanwhile,

auditory learners formed impressions

based on how people spoke and sounded

whilst kinesthetic learners’ impressions

through body language and movement.

18. Explore how learners determine

situations that triggered anger

within them and their initial

reaction to this.

When angered, visual learners will choose

to go over and replay the situation in their

mind to determine the cause of their

emotion. Auditory learners will react

verbally, through raising voices and

explaining how they feel. Kinesthetic

learners are likely to react physically by

slamming doors or stamping their feet.

19. To examine learner preference in

remembering people.

Visual learners will remember faces,

auditory learners gravitate towards names

whilst kinesthetic learns to remember

actions taken or base this on an

individual’s conduct.

20. Exploring how learners interpret

body language

When determining whether an individual

is being dishonest, visual learners will

focus on eye contact and movement.

Auditory learners will focus on the voice

and focus on any change in pitch for

example. Kinesthetic learners, on the

other hand, focus on body language and

non-verbal cues to pick up on any

‘suspicious’ movements.

21. Explore how learners use body

language when socializing

When socializing visual learners prefer

maintaining eye contact and

acknowledging one’s presence through

their gaze. Auditory learners use words

and verbal expressions when greeting

individuals, whilst kinesthetic learners

prefer making physical contacts such as

hugs or handshakes.



Question

No.

Objectives Findings

22. Examine how learners store ideas

for later recall.

In order to store ideas and new concepts,

visual learners showed a preference for

note taking, auditory learners preferred

repeating ideas to themselves both

mentally and verbally, whereby,

kinesthetic learners preferred to practice

the activity or visualize themselves

applying the idea.

23. Determine learner preference for

expressing a complaint.

Visual learners preferred to put down

their views in writing. Auditory learners

preferred to complain verbally via

telephone conversation. Kinesthetic

learners preferred to contact an office

directly in person.

Upon grouping, respondents were assessed as to their learning preferences.

The objective was to identify the preferred learning style amongst the visual

learners when they use Microsoft PowerPoint for learning and required

respondents to select the presentation format which most effectively conveyed

information to them. Figure 3 illustrates the choice of presentation format

presented to respondents, whilst Fig. 4 assesses the type of slide presentation style

that the learners preferred.

Fig. 3. Which of the following presentation

style helps you to brainstorm effectively.



Fig. 4. Which of the presentation style that you prefer?

3. Results

The majority of the respondents 50% were Malaysian nationals which were not

expected, whereby 10% of respondents identified themselves as Indian nationals,

the remaining of the respondent originated from across East, South East, South, and

Central Asia. In terms of educational level, four quarters were pre-university 62%,

undergraduate 24%, masters 10% and 4% doctoral candidates as shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5. Distribution of study area or course program among respondents.

Section B of the questionnaire consisted of 23 questions form the basis for

assessing the respondents’ learning style. In keeping with previous research [3] most

respondents are visual learners (44%), with a further 17% a combination of visual

and auditory learners, 13% a mixture of visual and kinesthetic learner, 13% auditory

learners, 4% a mixture of auditory and kinesthetic learners, and finally 9% classified

as kinesthetic learners. The distribution of learning styles is indicated in Fig. 6, whilst

Pre-University62%

Undergraduate24%

Master10%

PhD4%



Table 2 conveys the percentage of visual learners, aural/auditory learners, and

kinesthetic learners with respect to each questionnaire question.

Fig. 6. Distribution of learning styles among the respondents.

Table 2. Analysis of Learning Styles among the respondent.

Question

No.

Analysis

1. 40% reads instruction, 30% listens to explanation, 30%

experimenting

2. 35% look at the map, 35% asks for direction, 30% uses a

compass

3. 40% follows a recipe, 40% testing, 20% calls a friend for an

explanation

4. 40% demonstrates it first, 35% gives a verbal explanation, 25%

writes the instruction

5. 40% watches how I do it, 35% listen to me, 25% you have a go

6. 40% plays a sport or do DIY, 35% listening to music and talking

to friends, 25% goes to museums and galleries

7. 40% tries and tests them (C), 40% imagines what they will look

like in it, 20% discusses with shop staff

8. 40% reads brochures, 35% imagine what it would be like, 25%

follows the recommendation from friends

9. 40% focuses on words and pictures, 40% discusses problems

and solutions in the head, 20% moves around a lot and fiddles

with pens

Visual44%

Visual + Auditory17%

Visual + Kinestheic13%

Auditory13%

Auditory + Kinestheic

4%

Kinestheic9%



Question

No.

Analysis

10. 35% likes the colors and how they look, 35% follows description

by salespeople, 30% likes to touch the texture

11. 35% by looking at something, 35% by doing something (C),

30% by being spoken to

12. 45% visualizes the worst-case scenario, 30% talks over in the

head, 25% fiddles and moves around

13. 40% writes revision notes and diagrams, 35% discusses notes

with other people, 25% imagines making a movement or

creating the formula

14. 40% talks them through my idea as they do it, 35% shows them

what I mean, 25% explains to them in a different way

15. 45% watches film or photography, 30% listens to music or

talking to friends, 25% taking part sporting activities, eating fine

foods, and dancing

16. 40% arranges face-to-face meeting, 30% talks through

telephone, 30% gathers through activities

17. 45% look and dress, 35% sound and speak, 20% stand and move

18. 40% raise my voice and tell people, 35% keep relaying in my

mind, 25% physically demonstrate my anger

19. 35% faces, 35% things that I have done, 30% names

20. 40% they try to avoid looking at you, 35% they give funny vibes,

25% their voice change

21. 35% “Great to hear from you”, 35% give them a hug or

handshake, 30% “Great to see you”

22. 35% writing notes or keeps printed details, 35% saying them

aloud or repeating words and key points in my head, 30%

practicing activity or imagine it to be done

23. 40% complains about the phone, 35% taking them back to the

office, 25% writes a letter

Finally, Section C assesses the learning preferences among the visual learners.

From Figs. 7 and 8, the study concludes that visual learners prefer mind maps as

the brainstorming tools and prefer simple slides architecture, containing on titles

and its description.

Based on Fig. 7, 50% of the respondents preferred information presented in the

form of a mind map, 15% preferred diagrams, 20% preferred information in the

form of a pie chart, and 15% preferred the use of tables. As for Fig. 8, 55% of the

respondents preferred a slide layout consisting of a main topic and sub-topics, 20%

preferred a topic with descriptions, 10% preferred topic, description, and pictures,

and finally, 15% preferred topics, descriptions, and comparison of topics. A follow-

up questionnaire was distributed to 50 participants with some experience of

presentation mining software. Respondents are delineated into students and

lecturers, with three quarters falling into the latter category. When asked to evaluate

the system’s user interface and its usability, most students indicate an over

satisfaction with the User Interface (UI) as shown in Fig. 9.



Fig. 7. Results of respondents’ preferred way of information dissemination.

Fig. 8. Results of respondents’ preferred

slide structure for the question in Fig. 3.

Fig. 9. Level of satisfactory over user interface on presentation mining.

Picture 150%

Picture 215%

Picture 320%

Picture 415%

Picture 155%

Picture 220%

Picture 310%

Picture 415%

0 (0%)

9 (18%) 11 (22%)

1 (2%)

29 (58%)



Figures 10 and 11 show the satisfactory level in using this system. The overall

response is very positive.

Fig. 10. Overall satisfactory level of the system.

Fig. 11. Overall satisfactory level with system output.

The next question was directed more towards lecturers as shown in Fig. 12, as

to whether the tool will be useful for students.

Fig. 12. Recommendation to students.

0 (0%)

4 (8%)

10 (20%)

23 (46%)

13 (26%)

0 (0%) 3 (6%)

15 (30%)

19 (38%)

13 (26%)

17 (34%)

21 (42%)

11 (22%)

1 (2%) 0 (0%)



Figures 13 and 14 show the actual usage of the system for students and whether

they would recommend to other potential users.

Fig. 13. Usefulness of the tool to students.

Fig 14. Introducing and using the software in the future.

Other overall feedback from the participants can be summarized as follows.

On a positive note, software is informative, and features can be used to edit the

mind map and design the font. Also, the user can customize the number of

keywords shown in the mind map and request for more colors on the nodes. The

application has been identified as easy to use and saves time. The generated mind

map is easier to understand than drawing one’s own complex diagram.

Generating the mind map is fast in contrast to the huge number of slides used.

Furthermore, the tool is potentially beneficial to everyone and not just students

and lecturers, although its benefits as a revision tool are clear to see. As such,

positive feedback from students stated that they find the proposed tool useful and

easy to use. One of the student’s feedback stated that the system had, “Great

features, and if possible allowing the users to simultaneously process more

chapters, might reduce the time and the repetitive actions of selecting another

file if the users desire to make a mind map for each chapter”.

0 (0%) 3 (6%)

14 (28%)

18 (36%)

15 (30%)

2 (4%)

14 (28%)

15 (30%)

11 (22%)

0 (0%)



4. Conclusions

This paper has attempted to determine the impact of a presentation mining system

upon visual learners. The proposed system produces a mind map which is

formulated using keywords and key phrases extracted from a set of PowerPoint

slides. Based on the intrinsic characteristics of learning that are specific to visual,

aural/auditory or kinesthetic learners research conducted, the graphical

representation of information improves visual learners’ understanding. As such,

the presentation mining system has the potential to reduce learning time and

compliments existing presentation software, which can be extended to provide

visual maps of the corresponding text-based slides. For future work, it is necessary

to evaluate the quality of the mind maps generated by the presentation mining

system to mind a means to access the performance of learners. Overall, the

feedback gained from the research participants provide guidelines for future

improvements to the system, whilst the additional investigation is also required to

explore how the system can be further improved to meet the needs of Visual and

Read/Write learners.

Abbreviations

VAK Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic

VARK Visual, Auditory, Reading/Writing, Kinesthetic

WHO World Health Organization

References

1. Fleming N.D.; and Mills, C. (1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst

for reflection, Improve Academy, 11, 137-143.

2. Fleming, N.D. (2006). V.A.R.K Visual, Aural/Auditory, Read/Write,

Kinesthetic. Retrieved July 29, 2018, from http://vark-learn.com/introduction-

to-vark/the-vark-modalities/?p=categories.

3. Turkington, C.; and Harris, J. (2006). The encyclopaedia of learning

disabilities. Infobase Publishing, 304.

4. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon,

9(5), 1-6.

5. Cornu, B. (2011). Digital natives: How do they learn? How to teach them.

UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education. Retrieved

January 20, 2018, from http://iite.unesco.org/files/policy_briefs/pdf/en/

digital_natives.pdf.

6. Jubilo, A.B. (2014). Index of learning styles of chemical engineering students

of Ateneo de Davao university: Basis for teaching and learning approaches. In

Proceeding of the 75th PICHE National Convention Fiesta Pavilion, Manila

Hotel, 67-70. Retrieved January 20, 2018 from http://pichenet.org/attachments

/Conference_Proceedings.pdf.

7. Shenoy, U.G.; Kutty, K.; Shankar, V.; and Annamalai, N. (2012). Changes in

the learning style in medical students during their MBBS course. International

Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 2(9), 1-4.

http://pichenet.org/attachments



8. Paulraj, S.J.; Ali, A.R.; and Vetrayan, J. (2013). learning style preferences

among diploma students of occupational therapy in university technology

MARA (UiTM). Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 14(5), 603-609.

9. Weimer, M. (2012). Does PowerPoint help or hinder learning? Retrieved

January 20, 2018, from http://www.facultyfocus.com/ articles/teaching-

professor-blog/does-powerpoint-help-or-hinder-learning/.

10. Xingeng, D.; and Jianxiang, L. (2012). Advantages and disadvantages of

PowerPoint in lectures to science students. ETCS '11 Proceedings of the 2011

Third International Workshop on Education Technology and Computer

Science, 2, 448-450.

11. Cesena, E.; .and Vernizzi, D. (2011). Slides for teaching: the slim approach.

Retrieved January 20, 2018, from http://security.polito.it/doc/public/torsec

_didamatica2011_slide_machine.pdf

12. Kasinathan, V.; Mustapha, A.; Murad, M.A.A.; Rahmat, R.W.O.K.; and

Mansor, E.I. (2016). Presentation mining tool: from slides to mind maps.

International Information Institute (Tokyo). Information, 19(7B), 3003-3007.

13. Kasinathan, V.; Mustapha, A.; and Rani, M.F.C.A. (2013). Structure-based

algorithm for presentation mapping in graphical knowledge display.

International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3(2), 196.

http://security.polito.it/doc/public/torsec

assessing the impact of presentation mining on ...jestec.taylors.edu.my/special issue iccsit...

Documents